The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

You all think I'm going to talk about the 2004 Gerard Butler, Joel Schumaker adaption of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical don't you? That's adorable.

Directed by: Dwight H. Little
Released: 1989
Staring: Robert Englund, Jill Schoelen, Bill Nye,
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 4

  There are certain movies you watching thinking...I'm really enjoying this, I know I shouldn't because it's probably a ridiculously cheesy horrible movie, but I really am enjoying this. You watch it about three or four times, making jokes in your head but it doesn't matter because it's still a good movie. Then you watch that movie with other people and you realize all those jokes you made to yourself were totally justified and you should probably hide the fact that you bought this movie off of Amazon and you really love it from the general public....Anyone else have that movie?
        Anyone?
                 No?
  Well the 1989 adaption of The Phantom of the Opera staring Robert Englund and Bill Nye is mine. It's 80's, it's gore, it's ridiculous, it's not an accurate adaption of the book, and it is AWESOME. This being said, I have to let you all know....

  The bane of my existence presents itself in two forms. Bad Dracula adaptions {we'll get to this in a review later this month} and bad Phantom of the Opera adaptions. Is it really so impossible to produce a faithful adaption to the book??? The book has all the elements of an awesome horror/romance/mystery movie because it's an awesome horror/romance/mystery novel!
As of 2007 there were over 40 adaptions of Gaston Leroux's book. 
  I really love Phantom of the Opera. I got hooked thanks to a cassette of the Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical my parents bought after seeing the production in the early 90's. I forgot about the show for a while until 2004 when Joel Schumaker made it into a colorless, sub-par, yet enjoyable adaption. After being reunited with the story I hunted down the book and basically every other adaption I could get my hands on...let me tell you, there are A LOT of adaptions of The Phantom of the Opera. Most bad, all cheesy, but all (save the Dario Argento adaption) have their redeeming qualities.

  The 1989 adaptions' is it's 80's thrill and gore and Robert Englund....Poor, poor Freddy Kru... I mean ROBERT ENGLUND. The poor guy signed his action soul to the Devil the day he decided to do Nightmare on Elm Street. I'm sure he's made quite the pretty penny on the series, which boast 7 sequels to the first as well as the 2010 remake, but they've limited him creatively. ROBERT ENGLUND IS A GOOD ACTOR, I truly believe he is. Sadly, like make villains of 80's horror, he's been typecast to no end. Whenever he DOES land a role that is not Kruger, the character still haunts him. Marking people are mainly to blame for this and I have to say whoever was captain for this ship should have been fired because this is not acceptable...He's basically a marketing strategy

Seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but what assholes. From what I've read on the web Englund wasn't too happy about this either, and for good reason! I would not want people to go to a film because they expected to see Freddy, I would want them to go to see what else Freddy can do!
.

  This all being said, the character Englund creates is brilliant but he does offer several Freddy-esque characteristics. He has some great, macabre one liners, creepy laugh, and dream-like presence...In reality this has nothing to do with Englund's acting and more about screen writing. This may be a strong statement, but Robert Englund's interpretation of The Phantom is the closes to what I had generated in my mind from the book.
The Phantom is not a nice, cuddly guy chilling in the basement waiting to watch The Notebook with you *cough* Charles Dance *cough* he's a bad ass, crazy stalker. I say this with nothing but love in my heart, but he is out of his mind. He kills people, he LIKES killing people; but he's some how charming and intelligent!

  The rest of the cast is mediocre at best, even Bill Nye is odd in the role of the Opera House manager. Please don't even get me started on Christine...the young Jill Schoelen is not the worst Christine to grace stage or screen but she's not the best either. Her singing voice {which I don't believe is her own, is no where near "angelic"} I don't think I've ever seen a performance of Christine Daae (outside the musical content) that I enjoyed. Always winy, annoying, just uh...Not much praise can be showered upon this cast apart of Englund of course.


Now let's talk about the movie itself. This is NOT accurate adaption of the Leroux novel, it takes many, MANY heavy handed liberties included name, location changes, and TIME TRAVEL. The Paris Opera House becomes the London Opera House, I see no reason for this...it's not like they actually shot in either location...Daae becomes to American DAY a change which I despise and Erik disfigurement comes for the Devil in the form of a midget in a brothel....ya I'm just gonna let that one sink in.  LIKE I SAID, heavy handed liberties...they were taken. I've seen so many adaptions I've learned to take them as they come and all the changes in this adaption, while crazy and outlandish WORK with the film and I *screams quietly* love this movie!

  One of the main reasons, it's gross. Just sick...and so good! While no one has ever gotten anywhere close to showing Erik's true disfigurement on screen, the 1989 adaptions offers a pretty nasty take. Instead of wearing a mask made of any synthetic material or fabric, the Phantom chooses to cover his burned face in HUMAN SKIN...that's right a la Buffalo Bill, this Phantom does some patch work sewing on his own face. This is where that 80's gore and horror come in. We the audience get several scenes of Erik skinning people, sewing the skin to his face, the skin be ripped off...and it's awesomely disgusting. There are some top notch make-up jobs in this film no matter how Nightmare on Elm Street inspired they may appear. Having The Phantom wear a mask of human flesh really bumps up the gross out factor that the original novel held so close {in the scene where Christine takes off Erik's mask he takes her hands, and digs her nails into her skull, pealing off dead skin}

Did I mention, Erik has a really AWESOME Red Death costume in this adaption?

  It's not perfect, it's occasionally ridiculous in it's retro-ness, and it's ghastly gory, but it's for those reasons I enjoy it! I don't take it seriously, and you shouldn't either! So if you've watched your collection of Nightmare on Elm Street so many times you can pin point the second a prosthetic tongue worms it's way out of a cored phone, give The Phantom of the Opera a try. Not as hokey as Nightmare but retaining a similar atmosphere and leading man of course. Robert Englund's performance is reason enough to watch Phantom but the gory 80's style are PERFECT for a Halloween viewing. Someday I hope this film will worm it's way onto the cult classic shelf along Nightmare, Halloween and Friday the 13th.

  I was going to talk about the Charles Dance tv miniseries of Phantom from 1990 but it's quite an extensive review all ready. All you need to know is I like it for unknown Charles Dance-y reasons.

I love Charles Dance...he is my favorite character on GOT and I didn't even know this until I rewatched season 2. Dance is no Lion in this miniseries however...he's almost the opposite.

  Charles Dance is an adorable English man who plays a French man with an American accent while everyone else around him keeps their English accents. I'm sorry but when I hear the voice of an Angel he doesn't sound like he's from Iowa. He is a cute and cuddly phantom who actually sings. Possibly one of the worst Christine's even if she is blond like she is in the book. It's both horribly bad and charming all at the same time. If you're bored you can watch the whole whole mini series on youtube.

 You guys...Tywin Lanister was a total FOX.

NOTE: This is definitely NOT from the 1990 adaption of Phantom.

He's just fun to look at

Captain Phillips

 While Gravity may have been King of last weekends box office, Captain Phillips is packed full of just as much intensity and thrilling action; not to mention brilliant performances. 

Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Released: 2013
Staring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Barkhad Abdiraham, Faysal Ahmed, Mahat M. Ali, & Michael Chernus.
Rated: PG-13
Times Viewed: 1

"Based on a True Story" often leads to over-exposed and ultimate let down of many films in today's market; however, Captain Phillips lives up to the hype and offers the audience a solid and memorable action thriller.

  When Captain Phillips first crossed my radar I wasn't overly concerned with it's presence. Yes Tom Hanks is good but it was just going to be another dumbed down action-withouth action movie, nothing to get excited about. Weeks passed and the hype over the true tale of a brave cargo ship captain grew  and grew, traveling from media sites to my own parents. "That Tom Hanks is just incredible" my Dad boasted "Very good. Very intense" my Mother described via text. With their stamps of approval and the ever present accompaniment of "Oscar Buzz" I thought it was time to give Captain Phillips a chance. If all else fails, it has Tom Hanks, he's always a treat to watch!


  Captain Phillips successfully lives up to it's praise. Paul Greengrass creates a film that is not only laden with suspense, intensity, and action, but REALITY. Too often in Hollywood, action films turn into monstrous feasts of CGI, Good Guy vs. Bad Guy, and unnecessary SFX. Captain Phillips minimizes all the artificial aspects of an action film and allows the story be the source of action, not the effects. Granted, Greengrass had quite the story to work with. NOT to say I believe every event depicted in the film was what happened in real life, but how often is that what a film sets out to do?
  Based on True Event films like Captain Phillips set out to raise awareness and tell a great story. Is that always the right thing to do? No, but it's what making films is so often about, interpretation and presentation, not give an exact account. Yes, telling the real story is important but audiences must understand that this cinema and liberties will always be taken. I'm not here to tell you if Captain Phillips was an accurate presentation of the hijacking of Maersk Alabama in 2009, I'm here to review the film. If a movie like this is presented in such a way that it sparks my curiosity about the real events and compels me to do a bit of research, it's done it's job...along with entertaining of course.

  Greengrass' execution builds upon constant tension without feeling like a one note movie. Captain Phillips isn't confined to one space or vantage point, allowing the audience insight to more than just it's title character while retaining a sense of perspective. That perspective, while slightly slanted, is not singular. From beginning to end, the audience is shown both Phillips' and Pirate leader Muse's lives, motivations, and approach to their respective situations. Greengrass does this by presenting parallels in each man's life, showing the audience that the American Captain and Somali Pirate are not so different. I really loved this. Muse{pronounced "Moo-Say" I think}is , without a doubt, the antagonist; however, he's not completely unsympathetic. Audiences are shown why he's Pirating, his struggles, and his determination to prove himself. You're not necessarily rooting for the Pirates, but because of the insight into their lives and motivations, you're don't entirely want them to fail. A fresh take for the worn, one sided approach Hollywood so often takes. To quote one, Tom Hiddlestone "Every Villain is a Hero in his own mind."  Captain Phillips illustrates this beautifully.  

Director Paul Greengrass with his cast of Somali Actors on the
set of Captain Phillips (2013)

"From the Director of The Borne Supremacy & Ultimatum" had me nervous. These are the films that brought us the current action film staple...SHAKEY HAND-CAM. Yes that lovely, belligerent craft of strapping a camera to one's hand and not giving a frame as to whether the audience can acutely tell what's being filmed for not...Everyone rats on J.J. Abrams for lens flares? Shaky Cam will always be my ultimate enemy...

  So you see why I had my reserves about the film due to it's director, but Greengrass blew away all preconceived assumptions and delivered one helluva great action film. A great story helps, but the way this movie was filmed is what made it a such a success for me. "No tricks" as many characters in the movie often repeat, there were no tricks while making Captain Phillips. No ridiculous camera tricks, SFX tricks, or (most importantly) CGI tricks. This was solid thrills and action done without a single explosion or illogical car {boat} chase. In simpler terms, everything in Captain Phillips made sense. I never felt there was a time when I was apart of a sequence of action that didn't NEED to happen.

  Now action cannot be anything without actors and Captain Phillips' cast is ripe with raw, talented actors. Tom Hanks, I don't think this man has made a bad movie. And don't you dare say the Da Vinci Code because I immensely enjoy that movie! We all know Hanks can be the good guy, the nice guy, the funny guy, but we rarely see him in such a HUMAN role. It's refreshing to see him portraying a though, sometimes verging on unlikable character. Hanks doesn't milk the scene he has with his wife at the beginning, he just makes it real. The same goes for the first couple scenes as his character first takes charge of the Alabama and it's crew. Dare I say, he's kind of a hard ass. But it's truth, it's real. Hanks' final scene, after his rescue, is one of the most heart wrenching on film this year. The pure emotion that he exhibits is unbelievable and leaves not one dry eye in the theater.

  While Hanks is the obviously the big star in the film his rookie co-stars are not to be cast into his illustrious shadow. Much of the hype that's followed Captain Phillips has been surrounding the Somali actors who portray the hijacking pirates. All who, I might add, are from MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA! The four amateurs play it like old pros, all unforgiving and truthful as Hanks himself. Barkhad Abdi, the leader of the pirate crew, is getting a fair amount of Oscar Buzz for his performance and for good reason. Even in his silent moments we see the cogs turing in his mind, calculating and determining. Abdi holds his own against Hanks and gives a truly outstanding performance that is reason enough to check out Captain Phillips.

  If you haven't seen it yet, Captain Phillips is the one to watch this weekend. Where Gravity staggered in acting, Captain Phillips sores above. This film is everything that a GOOD action film should be complimented by top notch acting. It's bound to score at least one Academy Award nom come early next year; this is one Oscar film that can be enjoyed by any and all audiences.

Gravity

This whole problem could have been solved if you had a Time Lord...

Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón
Released: 2013
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Sandra Bullock & George Clooney
Times Viewed: 1

  But all Doctor Who jokes aside, Gravity reiterates a fact embraced by many a Whovian...Space is AWESOME. Not since Kubrick has a director translated the terrifying desolation and beauty that is Space onto the silver screen so spectacularly. Alfonso Cuarón utilizes Space like no other, continuously flirting with varying levels of depth of field as well as sound. The scope of Gravity, at first glimpse, appears vast and daunting but Cuarón brings this epic down to human reaches by interjecting immense cinematography with tight, extreme close-ups of it's leading lady. The director plays with reflections in space suit helmets, POV shots, and even drops nod to Kubrick if you're a cool enough cat to catch it. Alfonso Cuarón's variety, sharpness, and seamless blending of film and CGI creates an irrefutable Sci-Fi classic. The great this about Gravity thought is that it's hardly Sci-Fi at all..no aliens, no laser guns, just real space and real people. 

   Sandra Bullock, who wouldn't have been my (nor I believe the directors) first choice for the role, can be a bit distracting at times...a kinder word than annoying. Bullock was not the worst actress to be cast in a role such as this and did demonstrate great command over her body, hours of trainer where evident in her physical being, but when it came to a vocal presence she's not one I appreciated. She gives literal life to the phrase "Ah, Ahh, Ahhh." This being said, the Academy Award Winner brings a human "real life" presence to the role.

  Opposite Sandra Bullcock, the ever charming George Clooney does what he does best...charms his way through the film. George Clooney plays George Clooney, and the first 10 minutes of the film try so unbelievably hard to establish a (charming) character for Clooney it's somewhat painful. On the verge of cliché, his veteran Matt Kowalski (charmingly) reflects on past missions, mishaps, and memories with Huston as he takes his final walk throughout space, alluding to retirement and lamenting that he'll never surpass the record for most time spent wondering the heavens above.  

  Does anyone remember Michael Clayton? An angry, passionate George Clooney, that's what I'd love to see again...he's a talented actor but I feel he choses roles that too closely reflect him as a person. In that perspective Gravity was a perfect match, but I'd love to see him take a real, unforgiving RISK.

But perhaps I pick on the leads too much...I've yet to decide if my reservations about each actor was due to the performances or a sub-par script; my conscious tells me it's the later. 

  Unfortunately the script (mind you not the story) proved to be the film's weakest attribute. Majority of the film belongs to Bullock who, again, wouldn't have been my first choice for a role like this but my overall impression was she carried many of the scenes well enough. The attempts to build an emotional back story for her character Ryan Stone failed,  transforming from bone dry to down right cliché. Creating back story for a character is important so the audience can develop that emotional connection and, ESPECIALLY in a film like Gravity feel the character's tension, anxieties, fear ex. as they push forward to the climax and an undeterminable end. Again, this was more the writers fault than Bullock's. I do appreciate we didn't get any cheesy flash backs of Stone on earth with her beloved daughter, the accident, and Stone's sedated life afterwards. In the hands of another director, poorly plotted flash backs such as these could have ruined the entire film; thankfully Cuarón keeps us in the now, in the space, and in what's important. Any return to Earth before the finale would have broken the atmosphere and caused utter disaster. For keeping such consistency, I must say bravo Caurón on a bold decision.

  Sound, or the absence of sound surrounds Gravity but doesn't let itself become the most memorable thing about the film...although it does make a sizable impact. Explosions are witnessed in almost complete silence with nothing but Steven Price's haunting and inspiring score to accompany them.

Check it out here!

  

  While the character development and back story may be predictable, the film itself is not. Visually unique, one cannot help but return to Kubrick's game changer 2001: A Space Odyssey and remember the impact it had on audiences and film makers alike. Just consider what Gravity means for this generation? With Star Trek and Star Wars with their own come backs underway, Gravity has certainly forced the sequels to up their game. The CGI is flawless and the use of the 3D is the BEST I've ever seen. The cinematography is unbelievable . Simply unbelievable. I would attempt to describe it but in Gravity's case, the pictures really are worth a thousand words. 

    There's not much else I can or will tell you about Gravity other than GO SEE IT! Go see it in Theaters in 3D. It is without a doubt THEE film to watching this fall season. It's an experience unlike any other that you've had at the theater. Tension, anxiety, and frustration are all felt and shared by the audience. Visually impeccable and emotionally heightened, Gravity simply cannot be missed. 

Hitchcock

I figured if this film was filmed in only 36 days, I can take some time and give it a quick review.

Directed By: Sacha Gervasi 

Released: 2012

Rated: PG-13

Staring: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, & Danny Huston 

  Well my dears it's October once again, my favorite time of the year! Horror films shall soon be filling up my schedule but before they do I thought I'd give you all a review of a movie I caught earlier this summer, Hitchcock. Released in 2012 this quick, well acted piece tells the tale of cinema's master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock and his wife Alma during the filming and production of his most iconic film Psycho. Labeled a suspense thriller, Psycho has been terrifying audience goers for generations.
  The 60's saw a boom in the psychological horror genre with hits like Rosemary's Baby, Psycho was no exception. Hitchcock revealed the true horror that a brutal killer could be ANYONE. The real monsters are the ones right down the street. Hitchcock reflects this thought and portrays some top notch creepy scenes delving into the psychology of both the story behind the movie and the man brining it to life.

 
  That being said, the movie confuses it's protagonist flitting between Hitchcock, his brief decent into  madness, and his wife Alma; self conscious, dealing with an inattentive husband and her own career. The movie tries to show us what's going on in Hitch's mind, but also tell the story of the woman behind the man and how much she attributed to his success. This is where it becomes muddled and a question of WHO'S movie is this? Hitchcock feels like two films; one about Hitchcock and one about his wife.  On their own they'd be good, but lacking in impact for the silver screen. The story of the director and the story of his wife both seem fit for an HBO movie or mini series. Putting them together made sense for a feature film but not enough for the film to garner any attention from the Academy.

Anthony Hopkins & Michael Wincott have a little chat about murder
as Hitchcock and serial killer Ed Gein. 

The always lovely Helen Mirren, although I don't remember her
smiling this much... 

   All that may give the impression that I didn't care for the movie, but I actually did! Despite it's somewhat confused center, Hitchcock is a charming, witty, and bright film...enough so that some of the more morbid scenes featuring a grizzly Ed Gein popping up in Hitch's subconscious don't bring the film too far south. As a period piece, costumes and hair and make-up especially were spot on! Hitchcock retains a light atmosphere regardless of the unsettling movie that it's characters are producing {referring to Psycho} Hitchcock simply looks clean and features a strong leading, as well as ensemble cast. My concerns expressed above, while valid, didn't produce a negative effect upon my final opinion.  I quite enjoyed this film and I think movie lovers, especially Hitchcock fans will too! 

Jessica Beil reenacts an iconic scene as Vera Miles 

  If you're not a huge film history junky like myself, it's fun to see for the first time just how secretive Hitchcock was during the production and release of Psycho. From buying all copies of the book, to enforcing his rule of no one entering the theater after the movie had started all to preserve the secrecy of the final plot twist!
   
  Pros like Hopkins and Mirren are bound to get the job done and in Hitchcock they did just that, in only 36 days no less! To Hitchcock's benefit, it' running time concludes a few minutes over an hour and a half. Great for a casual watch or popcorn movie marathons, it doesn't depress and it doesn't condescend. Had it been any longer the material would have stretched too thin and turn melodramatic but it ends nicely and with a bit of a humor as well.
 
  There are periods of darkness in the film where we see Hitchcock imagine himself performing grizzly murders accompanied by Ed Gein (the inspiration for Norman Bates for those who didn't know) and dramatic sections featuring Alma wrestling with fidelity to her husband and her own work, but when the two sides come together to produce the final cut of Psycho it's a fun and entertaining insight.
 
Don't let the title fool you, this is Helen Mirren's movie; creating a believable and relatable character. Mirren tops the bill followed closely by Hopkins who's Hitchcock is good (with the help of make-up crew) but never comes to a definitive portrayal of the Master of Suspense. Scarlett Johansson surprised me with her fresh performance of Janet Lee; I feel she, as an actress, is finally coming into her own.

The Remake & Television

  Gus Van Sant, an undeniably talented director, fell short in 1998 when he directed a shot for shot remake of Hitchcock's original. This film is one where we cross ourselves and whisper "God save the Cinema" He produces compelling work, but why would you waste time, money, and talent on such a project? Reason escapes me...

 
  2013 brought us another in a long line of horror movie prequel T.V. shows. Bates Model on paper was a brilliant idea and had so much promise. All the Mommy issues and back story on the characters of Norman Bates and his mother rooted in the book give writers so much to work with...but then, as with almost all made for television prequels, it *excuse me* got it's head stuck too far up it's backside and became ridiculous and outlandish on the verge of a joke. I can honestly say I think Hitchcock would turn over in his grave if he saw what they did with such solid source material. Initially I looked forward to the series but dropped it half way through due to increased head shaking and face palms I implied after every episode. Vera Farmiga's talent alone can't carry this sinking ship.

Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

  Sometimes I wonder what the movie industry would become if it didn't have an endless supply of teen fantasy novels to act as screenplay material...

Directed By: Harald Zwart
Released: 2013
Staring: Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower, Robert Sheehan, Adrian Turner, Kevin Zegers, Jemima West, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, & Lena Headey
Rated: PG-13,

  Vampires, werewolves, and witches; staples in Hollywood cinema are normally figureheads for Halloween themed horror flicks. From Max Sherck to Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. and even Jack Nicholson, these actors are known for their roles within the supernatural realm. The classic era of Hollywood produced THEE images audiences associate with fantastical and horrific creatures. Looking The Wolfman and Frankenstein in particular, the monster's were terrifying yes, but sympathetic emotions were injected into the story and performances. I myself still want nothing more than to wrap my arms around poor Larry Talbot aka Lon Chaney Jr.and tell him everything will be alright.

Above: The sad and adorable Lon Chaney Jr. & the scary and irresistible Bela Lugosi
Bottom Lon Chaney Jr. & Evelyn Ankers in The Wolfman (1941) 

  March 40 some years in the future and the 80's resurrected horror and it would never be the same. The blood was redder, the girls were hotter, and the villains unforgiving. 80's horror has become it's own genre, generating  countless cult classic that today still have movie goers covering their eyes and jumping out of their seats. The image transformed from sympathetic beast to blood-lusting killer; directors and make-up artists pushed the envelope as well as the fake blood supply. 

David Naughton in American Werewolf in London (1981) 

Keifer Sutherland in The Lost Boys (1987)

  Horror, one of my favorite genres of film, has transformed medieval monsters of folk lore into house hold, revenue-generating assets. Transformation included the jump from horror to other genres; largely fantasy and even more surprisingly romance. Not to say furry monsters, scaly creatures, and charming blood-suckers haven't been the subject of their fair share of amour, just never to the extent of our modern film and more importantly modern literature. 

  New authors create their own rules within their own worlds, generating an endless flow of fresh material for Hollywood to manipulate and market.  I read both Bram Stoker's iconic vampire novel and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein before I finished 5th grade. I read the Twilight series in middle school and despised the film which lead me to question why and how I had enjoyed the books...final conclusion, I enjoyed them out of secret love I had (and still do) harbor for Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jr. Despite the complete failure that was the entire franchise, I continually read fantasy, teen-romance series. While every other girl buried themselves in Nicholas Sparks, Sarah Dessen I attached myself to authors like Melisa Marr and Holly Black. Lots of fae fantasy...{note: J.K. Rowling & J.R.R Tolkien were my first a favorite as far as fantasy literature goes.} 

  But holy cats I need to get back to the movie in question

  Long story short, being a fan of fantasy/romance a friend suggested I check out The Mortal Instrument  series and I HAVE READ THE FIRST ONE, CITY OF BONES...that took much longer than it should have...apologies. The reason I wrote that 4 paragraph exposé was just to give you a little insight on the genre crossing that is so common in not only writing, but in film making. The majority, if not all of the dark fantasy romances with vampires, werewolves, witches, and now demons have come from the flood of cross genre, young adult novels that have captivated readers all over the world. Tolkien was the first, followed by Rowling to create a HUGELY successful franchise off of a fantasy series. It's only a matter of time until YOUR favorite series gets an adaption and you can love or loath how the film industry interprets it. 

FINALLY TO THE ACTUAL MOVIE REVIEW!

 I read City of Bones my junior year I believe and thought it was a solid enjoyable start to a series; I feel the same way about the film. That being said, had I not read the book (no matter how long ago it was) I think I may have been marginally confused by the film. I love vampires, werewolves, fae, and demon hunters so this series is right up my ally; however, for the average movie goer City of Bones may just be a jumbled piles of monsters, angels, demons, and young, angsty romance. 

  

 From what I remember of the book, all major plot points, action sequences, and back stories are present to provide a fun and thrilling movie going experience for audiences but that comes from someone who has read the books and understands that world in which it takes place. I don't know...I've heard mixed reactions from viewers... it IS easy to understand...it ISN'T easy to understand...As one who has read the book it's difficult to be objective. I'll do my best...

City of Bones flows nicely with well choreographed action sequences and features a relatively solid cast. 

  I say relatively solid because let's be honest, this is a young cast in an action/fantasy/romance film, I'm not expecting any Oscar worthy performances but most, save Godfrey Gao as Magnus Bane, were on character and correctly cast. For this reason I'm not going to dissect any of the main cast, just two of the supporting male characters.

  

  The first is Jared Harris as Hodge. His performance less than what I had expected primarily because there was less of his character than you'd think. Where WAS he? I honestly think the character of Hodge was present on screen for less than 10 minutes, making his character nothing more than a story telling device, leading to minimum to no audience connect and therefore reaction when something actually happens to his character. I felt a bit uncomfortable with his character, at first I attributed it to miscasting but the more I think about it that wasn't the problem. The problem was he was just NEVER in the film and was never give a strong character. Hodge is described as this great leader and he was reduced to a shivering coward...I feel screen writers could have done much more with his character, giving poor Jared Harris more to work with.

He does have a nice face...

  Next I want to discuss Jonathan Rhys Meyers...perpetually confusing as a human being, I've never come to a firm like or dislike of him as an actor. Is he fantastic? Not particularly. Is he dreadful? No. He just IS. Soulless seems the appropriate descriptive...Perhaps this is why I so enjoyed Rhys Meyers as Valentine. Soulless yet filled with emotion, is this too contradictory a statement? Well if it is you understand how I feel about him. He has these empty eyes...empty eyes filled with tears, a man totally consumed with power and passion it has destroyed him. Rhys Meyers will next be appearing as the title character in NBC's adaption of Dracula...So far I'm not necessarily thrilled about this BUT one must remember I felt the same way about Hannibal which has become one of my favorite network television series...only time will tell.

The special effects were nothing special...somewhat generic, but I thought they were used well when it came to the werewolf transformations and some of the fire demons featured near the end of the film.

As I wrote earlier, the action sequences were very well choreographed with various weapons and fighting methods used, it kept the fights interesting. I particularly enjoyed the battle with the Vampires. These are no Twilight, hopeless romantic vegetarians, they're an underground bloodsucking gang; taking prisoners and ensuring fear. In this series, the author has returned to the vampires natural core, evil and hungry. The make-up used made them appear a bit zombie-ish but I'll take ripped clothes and dirty skin over diamond sparkles any day. 

Adrian Turner sports some Sweeney Todd esque hair as alpha werewolf Luke

  The troop of werewolves are a bit generic and stereotypical...a bunch of scruffy, motorcycle driving, car fixing guys...but hey, Adrian Turner looked the part and was a good choice for the part. Also, let us rejoice that the werewolves weren't a click of young, hot, hairless teenage bros but older, rough and tough gents I can picture a hard hearted Lon Chaney Jr. joining...as long as he grew a beard. 

  The movie was not without it's corny bits but it's a teen based film so what can you expect...All in all I enjoyed watching City of Bones. It not exceptional, but I think they did quite well taking the source material and putting it on the big screen. It's no Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings and doesn't have the support like the Twilight fandom, but I feel badly that this film didn't do better. Earlier this summer I watched another fantasy teen romance series turned film franchise Beautiful Creatures. I hadn't read the books but my feeling toward that film were almost equal to City of Bones. Nice. I had a good time, I enjoyed it. Many, many critics say these films are "misfires", I disagree. They're just good enough to possibly make a sequel. I mean you have to consider the MATERIAL you're working with...

My final reaction to City of Bones, surprisingly positive.
 

Evil Dead & The Conjuring

This past week I jumped back on the adrenaline pumping wagon that is Horror movies.

  The horror genre is without a doubt one of my favorites. A couple of my favorite movies are horror films [The Shinning, Bram Stoker's Dracula '93, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari] That being said, it's in my opinion the hardest genre to do correctly and successfully.
  A great horror movie isn't just something that presents scary faces, ghosts and gross out moments, it's all about the feeling. A heavy lingering atmosphere is was accelerates an ok scary movie to a great horror film. The sensation of unease and primal wrench in your gut is what a great horror film should create; and not just through it's images. Music, camera angles, lighting are the biggest factors in creating that eery, haunting feeling. Last Friday I dragged my friends along to The Conjuring and was thrilled that after years and years, we have finally got a solid, no nonsense horror classic. But first....

  My review of The Evil Dead has the most hits out of any reviews on Miss Morgan At The Movies.
Now when I originally watched The Evil Dead I was quite terrified. I did not have a good time. BUT THAT'S WHY IT'S SUCH A GREAT HORRO MOVIE. It freaked me the hell out. And for that reason I did NOT want to check out what I thought would be the ultra-ultra-mega-super gross/violent/CGI filled reboot "Evil Dead", but by the end of the review I broke down and admitted I would probably end up seeing it with my friend and fellow cult film lover, Thomas Hacker whom I also watched and enjoyed The Evil Dead 2 with...no Army of Darkness yet...

Evil Dead

Directed By: Fede Alvarez
Released: 2013
Staring: Jane Levy, Shilo Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas & Elizabeth Blackmore
Rated: R

  Oh The Evil Dead with it's undying horde of fans, spin offs and even a musical! It truly is a genre of it's own. Zombie-ish, Cabin Teen genre right? Right. Anyway...Evil Dead I can't say I watched this film completely untouched by the influence it's predecessors. I mean...having watched Evil Dead 1 & 2 and ultimately enjoying them both for what they are, I feel like I am apart of the fandom...I know what real fans of the series want and expect. And all I have to say is there are only two opinions for hardcore Evil Dead fans. Love and Hate.

Jane Levy get's in deep in Evil Dead (2013)

   Here's the first thing I must note. Evil Dead is NOT a remake. It's a new story, a new group of kids, but.....The car is there, the deer (anters) are there, the cutting off of the hand is there, vomiting blood in the mouth is there, the sawed off shotgun is there, the CHAINSAW IS THERE. It's ALL there. Evil Dead, to me, seemed to say "Hey! We respect the original, we love the original and guess what? All of that still happened! This is just 30 years after the fact" Repercussions, a loop in events almost. Think J.J. Abrams Star Trek (please don't kill me for that one) It has the same...stuff, but obviously has been modernized and doesn't contain some of the hoke that a low budget movie of the 80's was bound to have.

Jane Levy as Mia sits atop a familiar car in Evil Dead (2013)    

"Cut it, CUT IT!"
No turkey to carve, but plenty of rotting flesh
Evil Dead (2013)

    You have character that represent the past characters. At first Thomas and I kept asking "Where's Ash? WHERE THE HECK IS ASH!" But as the film went on we caught it...Ash has three letters in his name, Mia has 3 letters in her name...MIA IS ASH! And for me...it all worked. Once that hit me, the re-imagining with nods to the past, I sat back and let the references come. This is what I think will split the true fans...they'll either enjoy it for the clever, sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle nods to the past, or they'll hate it for "shitting on the original" Whenever a film has such a passionate group of people behind it, someone is gonna get upset. I just really hope fans can and will enjoy it for what it is...don't try to make it into the new Evil Dead because it's not and nothing ever can be, but there's no reason why we can't all just sit around a burning cabin chanting the incantations of The Book of the Dead TOGETHER!

What I liked most about this new take was there was actually a plot line. The group taking Mia to the cabin to help her quit drugs is not only justification for them being there, but also ads a bit of psychological creepiness to it...the friends first think she's just hallucinating, it's gets worse blah, blah...but yes. I liked that part. BUT WHERE WAS BRUCE CAMPBELL? #LOLZ #ForeverBadass

Horror soundtracks are sometimes difficult because of drawn out pauses for effect and the screechy scratchy can get annoying and not particularly enjoyable to listen to, but Evil Dead composer Roque Baños did a fantastic job.
Crazy scary, fitting, and unique. Check out this track that accompanied the final scene. Sirens, Chanting, Piano it has it all.

  

Final Thoughts

1. Did I like it? -Honestly I have to say YES. It's gross. Horribly gross, but so was the original. And I'm sooo happy it's not just a remake with the exact same characters and plot line...it actually HAS a plot line now. I wasn't too thrilled with the ending...I won't tell you what happens but the end end did bring it down a couple notches...no sunshine...NO.
  -Also, MAKE-UP. They used REAL MAKE-UP, fluids, and PROSTHETICS. This is one of the reasons I think my expectations were surpassed. I truly thought majority of mutilations in the film would be done with CGI (it must die) BUT for the most part, it was REAL...well real make-up. LIKE THE ORIGINAL. I think I'll cry from happiness.

2. Would I recommend it? -Uhh...unless you are a fan of the original or ultra gore-horror I have to say no. For the average movie goer who wants a good ol' horror movie for a couple jumps and scares this is not the movie for you. It's just too much (as with the original) tree rape, blood vomit-in-mouth, razor blade tongue-cut, chainsaw motherf*cker dismemberment...I mean Thomas and I were laughing, and cheering but for the average person...No, I can not knowingly suggest this to my friends who are not gore-enthusiast.

  While it has it's fair share of scares, Evil Dead is without a doubt a gross out horror film. Created to scare it's viewers through blood, guts, and severed limbs. You'll be watching through your hands, but that's because of the mutilated bits of flesh and body parts flying across the screen...not from genuine suspense and scares...The Conjuring on the other hand proved to have all these kinds of scares and more!

The Conjuring

Directed by: James Wan

Released: 2013

Staring: Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Lili Taylor, Ron Livingston, Joey King & children ensamble.

Rated: R

  It's been quite a while since I actually went to the theater to see a horror movie; the last one I remeber was 1408 with my sister back in 2007! Besides mockumentary superstar Paranormal Activity, my generation is not one to flock to the theater in great throngs to catch the newest horror flick; however, smart and classic, The Conjuring might be just the film to change all of that.

  With it's trending on twitter almost every night since it's release on the 19th, The Conjuring is an undeniable hit with a sequel soon to come.
The Conjuring is laden with suspense and eye covering, jump out of your seat moments.

  The 70's and 80's were cinema's golden years as far as horror films go. They were everywhere and they were good. The Exorcist, The Shining, The Omen, Poltergeist, these are good old fashion horror films that terrified audiences and for good reason. They're not hokey (well the Exorcist might be now but back then it was horrifying) and they play on a level of psychological horror as much as physical.

I quite enjoyed Vera Farmiga as Lorraine Warren
The Conjuring (2013)

   Just as Evil Dead has has it's own (multiple) sub-genres, {Gore, Zombie, Devil/Demonic Possession ect.} The Conjuring is primarily a haunted house film. The Hunted House movie has to be one of my favorite sub-genres of horror. The Conjuring sticks to the atmosphere of the classics without becoming old and tiresome. A familiar story is refreshed by clever camera angles & tricks, and unexpected scares.

  The Conjuring tells the story of demonologist, ghost hunters, and married couple Ed and Lorraine Warren as they attempt to shed the Perron family of the ghosts who inhabit their home and torment their children.

So I when I wasn't cowering in my seat, I was admiring Patrick Wilson...He's kind of a fox...and as I whispered to Sarah "Him...nice butt"
Patrick Wilson (NOT Will Arnett) in The Conjuring (2013)

 While it starts a bit slow, The Conjuring develops into an epic of  engaging and spine tingling suspense.  The scares, as in any horror/ haunted house film start slowly, quietly and innocently then escalate to a scream inducing collage created by a creepy score, even creepier back story, and prime ghost effects.
  The special effects weren't over done or ridiculous, and when a certain character was possessed I was again thrilled that the scary visage appeared to be created by make-up and prosthetics...maybe Hollywood has been reading my blog!
 
  As I said before a great horror film isn't just in it's scary images and gross out moments, it's in the atmosphere; the feeling, and The Conjuring consistently carries that feeling of apprehension and dread. You really don't want to know where the clapping is coming from, you don't want to see what's reflected in the mirror, you don't want them to go in the basement, but at the same time you NEED to! THAT is exactly the uneasy feeling a horror film should generate for it's viewers. That is exactly what The Conjuring brings to the table in old school fashion. According to interviews directed James Wan stated that he modeled the "cinematography and atmosphere after vintage 1970's horror films" This was very evident in the title sequence...color, font, scrolling and all.

How can a font and color be so scary?

  For me one of the most horrifying parts of the film was something so small yet had a huge impact in the creating of an atmosphere full of terror and panic. Near the climax of the film, there is a scene where Ed Warren & Roger Perron are attempting the rescue Roger's wife Carolyn from the locked home after discovering it's her the demon spirit is after. The camera is situated behind the two men as they attempt to break open the front door and once the door is finally flung open there is this unholy sound that rushes out of the house and seemingly into the audience. It's simply part of the score, nothing the characters react to as the camera flies above, but as they charge into the house a blare of deep horns, and voices, engulf the audience as if all the tortured souls of that house are bleeding through the speakers.
...is that too dramatic of description? Well it had me sinking about 6 inches lower into my seat. I felt like my soul and just dropped into the pits of hell...at first I didn't even know if it was in the movie because it was sometime I had never experienced before in a film. Such perfect blending of camera work and musical score...utterly terrifying.
   Music by Joseph Bishara

We are NEVER playing the clap game.
Lili Taylor in The Conjuring (2013)

"Based on a True Story" as always is fabricated for film, but after some research it's been discover the house in which the Perron family lived did have quite the history. As far as the questioned credibility of the Warren's...They worked deeply in the Amityville Horror case which is alluded to in the end of the film and therefore a possibility for the sequel...to say their work was or wasn't real would force one to admit whether one does or does not believe in the supernatural, demons ect. Either way they were a  fascinating couple; both in real life and on screen.

  The Conjuring is not without it's flaws. Like I said, the first 20 minutes are a bit slow but pick up quickly. The recurring instance concerning the Annabelle doll was unnecessary. It was perfect for an opening and character introduction but not needed after that. I felt the same away when the Warren's daughter kept getting brought up. It seemed like something that was thrown into the script as an after thought and doesn't really do anything for the film except remind the audience that the Warren's have a daughter too...other than these minor flaws this was, without a doubt, the best horror movie I've seen in a very, very, long time.

Ok I could have gone without literally a ghost in sheets but I see what you were going for.
The Conjuring (2013)

Final Thoughts

1. Did I like it?
     -Yes. Yes. Yes. I am particularly particular about my horror movies and The Conjuring took the haunting and suspenseful vibe of the classics of the 70's & 80's and modernized it.

2. See it in Theaters or wait for DVD?
     -I say see it in THEATERS for sure! When was the last time you went to a horror film in theaters? I hadn't since 2007 and I had forgotten how fun it can be! That sound ridiculous, but when you watch a horror film with such a large group of people you have the chance to see how differently every reacts to  films like this. Some scream, some jump, some talk nervously throughout the who film, and other's just cover their faces completely. It was filmed in scope and really utilizes surround sound. Even though some may pass it off as "just a horror movie" I really think this is one to see NOW and in theaters!

Life of Pi

...A horror movie in which the ocean is the villain and a 16 year old boy goes 227 days without growing any facial hair.

Directed by: Ang Lee
Released: 2012
Staring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall, & Richard Parker via Rhythm & Hues Studios
Rated: PG
Times Viewed: 1

  Perhaps it's because I watched both A Perfect Storm AND Cast Away at far too young of age, but I have always been TERRIFIED of deadly ocean storm and/or stranded in the ocean type films. Life of Pi, while vividly entertaining and beautifully envisioned, was no exception. If there was ever a film that  would convince me to stay away from ship travel this one would be it; forget Titanic, it's Life of Pi all the way. That being said, I'll do my best to cope with my fear of the open ocean/drowning and review the film without shuttering.

"Better than Disney World Mumbai!!!" 

   Everything you've heard about the amazing CGI in this film is absolutely true. Originally I was completely against the idea of  nearly 100% computer generated animals and visuals(set?) JUST USE A REAL TIGER and some clever trick shots is what I kept saying. Humbly, I must admit I was quite wrong about that and the visual team at Rhythm & Hues Studios did an outstanding job!

The detailed process behind making Richard Parker come to life

  I do believe you will always be able to detect CGI from non-CGI, but what the artist's generated was truly amazing. All of the animals, Richard Parker (the tiger for those of you who don't know) especially were created with such detail, vibrance, and movement when one is engaged in the film it's quite easy to forget they're not real. And for that I take my hat off to the designers and engineers at R&H Studios who were unjustly NOT appreciated or mentioned for their fantastic work during director Ang Lee's acceptance of the Best Director Oscar at this year's show...I'll delve deeper into that later.

A fight for dominance in "Life of Pi"

If they used some shots of a real tiger mixed with CGI I will never be able to tell the difference.

  Back to the animals...Animals which can so often appear flat and cartoonish on screen due to the lack of detail, attention to lighting, and depth, come alive in Life of Pi. As you would in a live animal, you can see every hair on the tigers coat move and ever scale on each fish glisten in the sunlight. The saturated colors of the entire movie help the animals really pop and allow the viewer to see how much work was put into creating these creatures.

  The limitless ocean, dream-like sky, and floating island also must be mention as they are all gorgeous and truly unique. I must say, this is a movie I really wish I would have seen in 3-D. I could tell from watching at home, Life of Pi was a film that was developed to be shot in 3-D and utilize it with the depth of the ocean, lashing tiger, and flying fish. Lee even changed the aspect ratio of the film several times to submerge the viewer even deeper into Pi's beautiful and deadly adventure.

  I  reccomend this film for the sole reason of the outstanding work the special effect team did on the whole film. It's vibrant, fun, sometimes scary, and always stunning. Life of Pi is definitely a feast for the visual senses.

I'm sorry Pi, the tribe has voted; You must either leave the boat or be eaten.  

Richard Parker & Pi have a staring contest to kill time...RP is a sore loser. 

  The story and themes behind Life of Pi, I feel could have been a bit stronger than were presented in the film. What themes you ask? Religion is supposedly the driving force of the story; however, at the end of the tale I felt as if religion had been lost rather than found. Religion is mentioned quite a bit at the beginning of the film as the writer and we the viewers are taken back to Pi's childhood and his induction into three (I believe) religions. I found this part of the tale quite intriguing and enjoyable; Pi telling us how he is able to simultaneously be apart of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. At first I thought the back story telling was a bit excessive but now that I think about it, that's what really connected me to the character of Pi.

  The strong appeal of the three different religions acting as one was perhaps why I felt as if they were missing at the end of the film. The character of the writer himself says the whole reason he was sent to Pi was because he had been told that Pi had a story that would make him believe in God...I felt, as Pi concluded his tale, the shock of the two different scenarios detracted from the major theme that was supposed to be represented in his tale.

A young Pi discovers Christianity.

  This is where the story and review get tricky. Pi revels to the writer that his whole magical journey with Richard Parker might not have even happened. It might have just been his mind's compensation for the tremendous amount of mental and physical strain put upon him by the wreak. I'll just leave it there so I don't spoil too much, but when those dual stories are introduced there will forever be conflict embedded in the story. JUST like THE LADY AND THE TIGER. Which one did she choose? Which one was behind the door? Which story was reality? Will we the reader and/or viewer ever know for sure? The writer chooses to believe the tale featuring Richard Parker because obviously it would make a great book to film adaption (har har) I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy this psychological turn of events, on the contrary I found it added a bit of substance to a rather fanciful film; but it was the intrigue of the two stories that seemed to be of greater interest to the writer and audience rather than religion. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, to me it just seemed to diverge from the original intent of the story.
      -I have never read the book although I've been told to by many...just so you know.

Director Ang Lee on set.

Ang Lee...that man is a strange duck...I'd just like to take the time and remind you all that this is the same Ang Lee who directed 2003's horrendous Hulk, which I think SyFy channel has even stopped playing. That being said, he has also directed some great films like Sense and Sensibility and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon...everyone gasp as I confess I have never seen Brokeback Mountain.

  Range in directing is good, but I feel his is at either end of extreme levels of quality. After finally seeing Life of Pi, can I say that I agree that he should have won the award for best director...eh...the list of directors this year was odd...I personally think Benh Zeitlin should have won for Beast of the Southern Wild (if you haven't seen it yet go NOW) Spielberg is and always will be fantastic, I've yet to see Amour, but then David O'Russell? I did like Silver Linings Play-Book a lot more than I had anticipated, but I didn't see O'Russell getting an award for it. Odd group...just odd. I was shocked when neither Tom Hopper or Quentin Tarantino were nominated; I would have loved to see Tarantino win for Django, but he go his Oscar for original screenplay so that's just as good if not better.
     
  I don't know...best directing? Really academy? Of the whole 2012 year?
Special Effects for sure...but directing? AND I must admit I lost a bit of respect for Ang Lee when he didn't even mention the special effects team in his thank you speech. I know there was a big lock out/the company was shutting down scandal, but those where the men and women who CREATED THE WHOLE FILM. Perhaps now I'm getting too subjective...don't let any of this deter you from watching because it really is a great film.

Life of Pi is no Cast Away. The gritty realism we as viewers have come to know from many a ship wreck film is replaced with spectacle and fantasy. Life of Pi is beautiful, with an fresh story and unbelievable special effects, this one is a must watch. Viewers of all ages will find something to enjoy in this film even if it is just the vivid scenery, glowing fish, or a tiger named Richard Parker.